Gay marriage

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Ummmm, no.
I think we'll just legalize marriage for same-sex couples in all 50 states and stop there.

Now...now...your bigotry is showing....oh wait...I forgot...according to the rainbow Orwellian manual, it's only bigotry if it's in opposition to legal SSM, not those other forms of alternative marriage. Right?

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
All people, Gary. All people are either male or female.

Wrong again, Bozo. Hemophodites are neither male or female.

[QUOTE]

Sorry Gary, restricting marriage to opposite sex couples does carry a sexual connotation. Only an idiot would claim otherwise. An intelligent person making such a claim could defend their statement by pointing out the compelling governmental interest that such a restriction serves that would render it constitutional.

More LGBT psycho-babble that signifies nothing.

Gary, homosexuals are already people in the eyes of the law. No amendment is necessary. If you think that the constitution needs to be amended to include homosexuals as persons, then you are an imbecile.

No...

Homosexuals don't exist in the eyes of the law. Certainly not in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But prove me wrong. Give us a cite.

I won't hold my breath.

This isn't rocket science, fella.

If we give you same-sex marriage your next step is to demand inclusion in the Bill of Rights specifying homosexuals as a group that should be protected. Then come the entitlements. This is why the ENDA bill is a Trojan Horse that should be blocked.

Employers should retain the right to fire homosexuals for being homosexuals, and forcing them to hire transvestites can only come from a queer and degenerate mind.

There are limits, fella.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Lides, can you offer any compelling state interest served by expanding the definition of marriage beyond it currently understanding, at least in thirty plus states, as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife?
<quoted text>
Unless such interest is served, and the expansion is narrowly tailored to accomplish said state interest, then the
expansion is constitutionally unnecessary.
You consistently fail to indicate such an interest, and thereby defend your infantile assertion that equal protection isn't satisfied under existing laws that define marriage as a union of one man and one woman as husband and wife.

Marriage benefits the individuals involved, making them on average happier & healthier & more successful. That's in society's best interest, which is why the govt promotes marriage.

There is simply no rational reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Simple, they were either bisexual from the start or are simply in denial.
Sexual orientation can't be changed.

Of course...silly me...perhaps female sexuality is more fluid than male. Explain this, Sheepie.

http://politicker.com/2012/12/the-lesbian-pas...

Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, an all-but-officially announced mayoral hopeful, has prominently featured his wife Chirlane McCray in his campaign literature and on his web site. Despite Ms. McCray’s front-and-center role in his campaign, for which she also serves as an unpaid advisor, one aspect of her life has thus far remained out of the public eye.

Prior to meeting Mr. de Blasio, Ms. McCray identified as a lesbian and had several long-term relationships with other women. In a seven-page essay she wrote for the September 1979 issue of Essence magazine entitled “I am a Lesbian” she frankly discussed her sexuality and expressed gratitude that she came to terms with her preference for women before marrying a man.

“I survived the tears, the isolation and the feeling that something was terribly wrong with me for loving another woman” Ms. McCray wrote.“Coming to terms with my life as a lesbian has been easier for me than it has been for many. Since I don’t look or dress like the typical bulldagger, I have a choice as to whether my sexual preference is known.”

She added,“I have also been fortunate because I discovered my preference for women early, before getting locked into a traditional marriage and having children.”

Today, Ms. McCray is very much inside of a traditional marriage with children. She and her husband met at City Hall in 1991 while she was working as a speechwriter for former Mayor David Dinkins and Mr. de Blasio was the mayor’s assistant for community affairs. The pair were married in 1994 at a ceremony in Prospect Park that included a gay, interracial, interdenominational pair of ministers, an Italian folk band and African drummers. Since then, Ms. McCray has had two children with Mr. de Blasio and, in her words, spent “almost 20 years of living with a campaign in my house.”

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you actually read what your post?
"Children raised by same-sex couples are one of the most difficult populations in the United States to study systematically because of their small numbers and their geographic dispersion. Census data are far from ideal, and better data would, of course, be welcome. However, currently, the U.S. census is the only nationally representative data set with a large enough sample of children raised by same-sex couples to allow for statistically powerful comparisons with children of other family types.
To the extent that normal progress through primary school is a useful and valid measure of child development, the results confirm that children of same-sex couples appear to have no inherent developmental disadvantage. "
Hoist with your own petard.

Of course I read it. All of it.

Did you?

KiMare wrote:

"Studies of family structure and children’s outcomes nearly universally find at least a modest advantage for children raised by their married biological parents."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...

Nope, not an accurate comparison since it doesn't compare married same-sex couples to married opposite-sex couples.

Try again doofus.

Wondering wrote:

<quoted text>
"To determine if a statute passes the test, a court considers whether the government has a compelling interest in creating the law"
Would you care to list those?

States had no compelling interest in banning same-sex couples from marrying.

That's why courts are overturning them.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly! That's the point, no different than any other man or woman. So why should they be treated any different as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. See odd to ask for equal treatment, equal protection of the law, but not as a man or woman.

So you're saying you're no different than a homosexual?

KiMare wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm surprised.
You claim to have been birthed by only one parent.
Now you want to procreate as part of a duplicate sex parent.
A fraudulent legal maneuver has quite some power according to you!
This from a leading gay brain!!!
LOL.

And yet you haven't been able to stop same-sex couples from getting married.

Nor have you been able to stop us from using your tax dollars to support married same-sex couples and our families.

No doubt you're surprised by a LOT of things.

KiMare wrote:

KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, its the consensus of scientific studies that looked fairly at all situations. It's also the consensus of normal people with any measure of common sense.
Your assessment of science and common sense only affirm you have neither.
What you do expose is a depraved level of deceit and denial. Hardly the model normal people want children around. Maybe you should let others argue the case for parenting, you clearly are disqualified.
<quoted text>
Not at all, I'm entertained.
Can't wait for you to explain how your dad birthed you all by himself.
Snicker.

I never said he did.

But of course you're too stupid to understand that.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Uhhhh...huh....so why the alphabet soup of labels?

Once again, that "alphabet soup of labels" exists only in your mind.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, not an accurate comparison since it doesn't compare married same-sex couples to married opposite-sex couples.
Try again doofus.

Unless I missed something in high school biology, human reproduction is still sexual. What part of "married biological parents" confused you? What the heck do you tell your Mom and Dad?

"Studies of family structure and children’s outcomes nearly universally find at least a modest advantage for children raised by their married biological parents."

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Ohhhhh....you just so cute when you try and convince us that you shouldn't be treated like any other man as it relates to marriage. It would be discriminatory for the state not to treat you like any other man and prohibit you from exercising your fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states.

Equal rights don't apply by gender.

I'm not only entitled to be treated equally to all men, but equal to all women as well.

So if a woman has a right to marry a man, equal protection means a man has a right to marry a man.

Otherwise we're back to blacks not being discriminated against because they're treated the same as all other blacks, just not like whites.

lides wrote:

<quoted text>
It's so cute when you parrot back legal concepts you don't understand and proceed to mangle them.
Do you know where the concept derives from, or when such an interest is applicable?
A compelling state interest is established by the concept of strict scrutiny, a level of judicial review applicable to determine if certain laws are constitutional. If a law infringes upon rights, then it must serve a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to accomplish its goal in order to be constitutional.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutin...
You look like an idiot when you attempt to apply legal concepts that you clearly don't understand.

And...?

Homosexuals are as alien to the Constitution as Little Green Men from Mars are. The homosexual has no legal standing as a homosexual no matter how you try and twist and bend the Constitution.

Which of course explains where you're going with same-sex marriage -- you want an amendment establishing homosexuals as a protected group the way blacks and women are. As we see in Massachusetts, you don't actually want to get married, you just want the seal of the Constitution on homosexuality.

But this should never happen because male-to-male sex is a morbidly unhealthy behavior.

You want us to be apart of your pact with the devil -- a pact that has already killed a million of your own kind and will kill a million more if you don't stop butt-fuking each other to death.

Male-to-male anal sex spreads disease and death.

What part of that don't you understand, fella?

Jupiter wrote:

<quoted text>
So you're saying you're no different than a homosexual?

Still hung up on those modern invented sexual identity labels, aren't ya?

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
First Rosie, we must define marriage, and what it means to marry.

It means 2 unrelated consenting adults entering into a contract with the state.

garylloyd wrote:

<quoted text>
More LGBT psycho-babble that signifies nothing.
<quoted text>
No...
Homosexuals don't exist in the eyes of the law. Certainly not in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But prove me wrong. Give us a cite.
I won't hold my breath.
This isn't rocket science, fella.
If we give you same-sex marriage your next step is to demand inclusion in the Bill of Rights specifying homosexuals as a group that should be protected. Then come the entitlements. This is why the ENDA bill is a Trojan Horse that should be blocked.
Employers should retain the right to fire homosexuals for being homosexuals, and forcing them to hire transvestites can only come from a queer and degenerate mind.
There are limits, fella.

Hey moron,the Constitution and the Bill of rights protects ALL citizens whether gay or straight! They don't have to specify gay dumb azz! D-U-H! So felon,when did you get out of the joint and what were you in for this time?

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Marriage benefits the individuals involved, making them on average happier & healthier & more successful.

Great, so let's take the "marriage" product off the shelf and give it to as many people as possible, after all it makes them on average happier and healthier. Think of the possibilities. Ya know...it could even become part of Obama care. I bet plural marriage families would love to be happier and healthier.

That's in society's best interest, which is why the govt promotes marriage.

Yes marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, the very union deigned to create new life!

There is simply no rational reason to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples only.

Nor to couples, after all, marriage makes people happier and healthier!

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly! That's the point, no different than any other man or woman. So why should they be treated any different as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife, valid in all fifty states. See odd to ask for equal treatment, equal protection of the law, but not as a man or woman.

Just because 34 states restrict marriage to the union of a husband and wife doesn't mean that's all marriage can be.

Obviously it can be the union of a husband & a husband, or a wife and a wife.

And it's not equal protection because I'm not recognized as a married man in all 50 states though other married men are.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
So do these "unbiased organizations" have to be "pro gay"?

In order to be truly unbiased, they can't be either pro-gay or anti-gay.